Author: Michael Chappell

That familiarity with period revival pieces might begin to equip someone who wishes to move toward collection of period English antiques evinced some surprise amongst my 20 or so devoted readers.

Certainly, the availability of multiples is greater amongst period revival pieces, and a low table that may have been a non-existent period form might have been available as a period revival piece but the person who has decided to change out revival for period has, often as not, already been apprised of these facts. Consequently, as a dealer, some of the hard work has already been done for us. Someone else has probably told them the things that, even gently put, often give offense. To wit- there is no such thing as a ‘period’ coffee table. A low table that is represented as period is doubtless something that has been adapted for the purpose and, the result of that adaptation, is not the type of thing we would handle. When confronted with a set of side chairs sans armchairs, we’ve had discussions without number about the original function of Chippendale period chairs, specifically that they were only incidentally for dining, more likely for arrangement at the side of a drawing room or parlor, hence the name ‘side’ chairs.

In any event, the person that becomes the collector has invariably been a party to these kinds of discussion at least once before, so we are not then the bad-news messengers who get shot. At this point, let me say thank you, you  proud but battered nameless antiques dealers and auction house experts, who have subsequently been shunned by a client merely for telling them the truth: you’ve done yeoman work.

Mercifully, for the sometime concern expressed about pricing, we’ve only seldom had to remarket material on behalf of a client- even non-period material- where the client did not recover their initial investment. This may get me into trouble, as this is no guarantee that a Chippendale revival piece from 1900 will be worth tomorrow what a body paid retail for it today. However, the passion for interior design has exponentially increased the demand for period look, if not price, and has certainly fueled a price escalation for pieces with some age and venerability that, in terms of percentage, might even be in excess of the appreciation for 18th century pieces. Further, there were some excellent makers in the period revival business- Edwards and Roberts, and even the vaunted Gillows of Lancaster and London, not to mention the Parisian firms of Linke, and Sormani, with anything stamped by these makers in high demand. James Archer Abbott’s 2006 monograph on Maison Jansen has had a marked effect on pieces made by or for that remarkable and prodigious interior design firm. At the most basic level, of course,  even period revival pieces are in finite supply, with demand continuing to increase.

That a private client can upgrade with oftentimes no loss on their initial purchase makes the prospect of purchasing finer quality period pieces an even happier prospect.

My blog entry yesterday brought some significant response that included my partner Keith McCullar, to whom I occasionally pay attention. He has a client, a real estate developer, to whom we’ve sold a huge number of French and English antique pieces and artwork. Although he is one of my favorite people personally, professionally his antiques purchases could hardly be considered connoisseurial. ‘Acquisitive’ more accurately describes this gentleman’s purchases. Mind you, amongst the items he’s acquired, he does have some fine pieces, but overall, the quality is, shall we say, mixed.

Moreover, he has no desire whatsoever to become a connoisseur. Development of taste is not his objective. We have encouraged him to weed out his possessions and upgrade, but with no result. He’s been lucky enough to travel widely, and, gifted with a winning, expansive personality, he enjoys nothing more than going into a dealer’s shop in, say, Bratislava, making the purchase of some bit of antique arcana and shipping it back to the US- usually telephoning us to arrange customs clearance while always missing critical documents. When one makes purchases after a long-ish lunch and topped-up with some Moldavian wine, one is apt to be forgetful.

Clearly, this was not the gentleman I was referring to in my last blog entry. Before I begin to sound really snotty, let me say whether a connoisseur or an acquisitor, our objective in the antiques business is to be, as best we can be, value-neutral and generally helpful. Our acquisitor may in fact become a connoisseur, as the thing that all our private collectors have in common is a high degree of physical and intellectual energy. They are never completely at rest, and this level of uber- activity can often masquerade as and be mistaken for a lack of focus.

I consider in this regard another gentleman who is now winding down his business career. Acquisitive over the course of the last two decades, he now sleeks to upgrade his collection, replacing period style with period pieces. For us, this is wonderful, as he knows what he wants, and knows that the pricing differential between period style- even something that is itself an antique from a now-century old wave of revivalism- is many times more than what he paid for the ‘looks like but isn’t’. Still,  since he’s been sufficiently acquisitive he’s been able, consequently, to begin to develop an eye and also knows something about how pieces were used in historic context, so we are able to communicate with him in nearly the shorthand terms that Keith and I will use when we discuss the relative merits of a piece. The challenge so far has been replacing multiples and pairs of period reproductions, with multiples and pairs of period pieces. He now knows why so many sets of period material are labeled ‘matched’ or ‘harlequin’- the fashion for sets has long since outrun the available material.

We’ve had a brief mention in a print article in a local publication that came out today. It’s interesting, because, although we were extensively quoted, our consideration of the antiques trade is overshadowed by the blather of another dealer who is a known blowhard. Sadly, he’s one of those folks who is less eager to sell his material than he is to tell you how much his inventory cost him to purchase. Between ourselves, we believe he’s actually demented, but this isn’t the point of the blog.

As so often happens, the article coincided with a gallery visit from a gentleman who we’ve seen from time to time over the last year or so. A property developer, he’s done okay and currently, while possibly not thriving, seems to be holding his own. He’s made the occasional small purchase from us, with his interiors designed by one of the up and coming designers. He’s chatted to us before about the fine and decorative arts we offer, and we have the strongest sense that he would love to move toward a measure of connoisseurship. His business background doesn’t leave him, of course and, though he wants to buy something that is aesthetically pleasing into which he can also achieve a measure of intellectual satisfaction, whatever he buys has to represent value for money. This, of course, is when we start to discuss art and antiques as fungible commodities. As a property developer familiar with appraisals, the notion of market value comparisons has a particular resonance within this discussion. It dawned on me as we were having this discussion that the components of market value, intelligently arrived at, have been a consistent entre in our beginning discussions with private clients who aimed to become serious collectors.

For someone not in business, the business of business may seem dry as popcorn, but no one who is successful in any endeavor does not pursue it with a degree of passion that feeds something in them other than a desire for monetary gain. Frankly, we’ve never seen anyone who has been successful in anything that did it just for the money. Consequently, Keith and I, with backgrounds in finance, are fortunate in that we’re able to speak the language of a number of people who, despite being well-heeled, would otherwise be at sea in the world of connoisseurship.

Back to our demented colleague, he was quoted as saying something along the line of how some dealers’ material may be expensive, but successful people who’ve worked hard owe themselves fine art and antiques. I wonder if he ever tells any prospective buyer that. Perhaps he does, and I suspect what he ends up with are the types of transaction-oriented parvenu who would, on another day, purchase a flashy car. Interestingly, our property developer client drove up the other day in- wait for it- a Chevy Impala, albeit a new one.

Walking to work this morning, I noticed a bit of doggerel painted on the sidewalk ‘Know Obama Know Marx’. Someone had made some effort to do this, as the lettering was carefully stenciled in red paint. 20 years on from the fall of the Berlin Wall, I feel a bit of nostaligia for the Cold War, and who under the age of 50 has even heard the phrase ‘red baiting’, much less knows what it means.

What’s happened today, with the chairman of GM resigning the result of pressure from the White House will cause those who would like to paint the president red screaming about controlled economies and fearful of the president’s tax and spend agenda that will so completely redistribute wealth. As someone well into his sixth decade, I have to say I look forward to the fruits of that most massive redistribution of wealth perpetrated by that other red president, Franklin Roosevelt. I’m referring, of course, to Social Security. For me, the mixed economic system we’ve enjoyed in this country for 8 decades seems just fine.

Frankly, top executives at General Motors- and that includes union officials- as with the banks, should get what’s coming to them. President Obama, as the people’s elected chief executive, should be the hatchet man. It is astonishing to me that, up to this point, GM’s stockholders have not arisen insisting on a clean slate. But, on second thought, there must be some sort of commercial and ecological myopia that afflicts GM stockholders. That must be it, otherwise GM’s single-mindedness in stamping out SUVs and pickups- products that for years could not be justified either commercially or ecologically- cannot be explained.

With all that, the slash and burn mentality seems to be pervasive within corporate governance. Does anyone do any strategic planning anymore? As the money center banks were packaging subprime mortgage loans, did they honestly believe that the actual performance of those loans would never be an issue? Returning to GM for a moment, emblematic of all smokestack industries, who that works there does not believe that environmental spoliation is not an issue? It seems clear that companies generally are managed from quarter to quarter (or more precisely, from bonus period to bonus period), with the devil, then, taking the hindmost. Unfortunately, the hindmost, consisting of a world on the edge of disaster, affects all of us, including those who profited inordinately. What do they say to themselves to justify behavior that has left global conditions in shambles? Where will they go to avoid the upshot of their actions? What do they tell themselves? What do they tell their children? These people must have physical access to some earthly oasis of which the rest of us are unaware.

Unfortunately, there exists now a term- I’ve heard it for years, but now hear it frequently- that describes the mindset the upshot for which we are all now paying: ‘mindless capitalism’. Mind you, I consider myself what’s termed a classic liberal, by which is meant a capitalist who maintains a mindset of enlightened self-interest- what’s good for me in the short run, if it is not good for others and/or good in the long run, is actually bad for me. What is of lasting benefit is, ultimately, good for me, too. Maintenance of this type of outlook requires critical, reflective thinking- something that doesn’t seem to even occur to most people- with rather sad consequences when this sort of thinking is not employed in business. Classic liberalism, moreover, probably doesn’t work as well for those with mortgages to pay on 10,000 square foot primary residences and payments to make on $125,000 cars. With all that, the government intervention in business, coupled with tax changes necessary to pay for it, seems to some like a nationalization, precedent, then, to a wholesale redistribution of capital as part of a movement toward a planned economy.  I don’t buy that. In my view, the government has lately only been trying to extinguish the economic firestorm brought about by mindless capitalism.

From what I read, a factor driving the current stock market rally is the spike since the first of the year in home sales- both new and existing. One pundit was quoted as saying that more homes turned over because of ‘aggressive’ (his term) seller pricing.

Well, gee…given how explosively housing prices had appreciated between 2001 and 2007, is it any wonder that some significant moderation has occurred? Simplistic, of course, but we’ve all seen bull real estate markets that are then followed by some correction. I’ve seen four- 1982, 1990, 2001, and now.  With all that, within sight of San Francisco- still a strong market- the desirable, close-in, built-out areas are holding steady or appreciating. The remote areas- by which I mean green-field developments, beyond public transportation, services, and anything other than basic infrastructure- are still suffering, but not as much as they were. Granted, the median home price locally is declining, but this has more to do with the fact that it is mostly relatively inexpensive homes that are on the market, naturally skewing the median price downward. My good friend and San Francisco residential real estate guru Greg Normart tells me that, for better residential properties he has many more buyers than he has sellers. The why of this, too, is simple- those better heeled sellers in the 7 and 8 figure properties are not, in the main, of a mind to sell possibly for less than they might wish in what is touted as a slow market.

When expensive homes are either being built or trading hands in fairly large numbers, we see our business, if not burgeon, at least expand. The first thing that starts to move in our regular stock of English antiques is dining room furniture- dining tables, sets of dining chairs, and sideboards. Although our craftspeople have told us that their clients tend to ease into projects with an increasing number of small orders, ours go what appears whole hog. Conversely, when fewer large houses are trading hands, it is the accent pieces- small tables, mirrors, object d’art- that sell.

Stay tuned, then- we’ll alert you to the running of the dining tables.